Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 27, 2012 10:30am-11:00am PDT

10:30 am
10:31 am
10:32 am
10:33 am
10:34 am
10:35 am
10:36 am
10:37 am
10:38 am
10:39 am
10:40 am
10:41 am
10:42 am
10:43 am
10:44 am
10:45 am
hello, welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance meeting. i'm carmen which you, chair, joined by supervisor avalos, joined by supervisor kim shortly and scott wiener *. our clerk is alicia. we have scetv group with us. madam clerk, do you have announcements for us. >> make sure to silence devices and include speaker cards to be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the october 2nd board of
10:46 am
supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. call item one. >> item one is resolution approving contract with new flier of america for low floor diesel hybrid buses not to exceed 36,889,364. >> thank you. supervisor wiener? >> thank you, madam chair. i'm proud to be sponsoring a resolution authorizing the municipal transportation agency to purchase 45 40-foot diesel hybrid buses to replace buses that are past their useful life. also to authorize the mta to enter into a contract to rehabilitate up to 80 of its buses. muni has many challenges, as we all know. one of the greatest challenges is that we don't have enough vehicles, buses and light rail vehicles. and that many of the
10:47 am
vehicles that muni does have require sitting work. need to be rehabilitated. are not reliable. they break down and service suffers as a result. so when i first learned that muni wanted to purchase these new vehicles and rehabilitate others i was excited to hear it. i was proud to be able to sponsor this authorization. it will make muni more reliable, it will make service more dependable and increase the number of vehicles that are usable by the agency. colleagues, i ask for your support in this authorization. >> thank you, supervisor wiener for your opening comments to the mta, who is here. do you have any comments on this item? do you have a presentation
10:48 am
for us? >> thank you. thanks to the committee. just make some brief opening remarks to support what supervisor wiener said and here to ask any questions. i would just remind the committee, this is part of a focused effort to renew the fleet. it's -- our rubber tire fleet is a $1 billion asset, carries about 75% of riders. we are currently operating among the oldest and i will say well used fleets of any major urban system. a couple points to highlight in addition to what's been noted in the opening comments and by the budget report, number one, this is -- we are taking advantage of a competitively bid consortium to get these buses. one of the things that it has done, by joining the consortium it's allowed us to reduce the up-front engineering time and some
10:49 am
of the processing time so that one of the things that i'm the most excited about, with your approval and assuming we can go through the rest of the process successfully and get a notice to proceed in november, the entire 45 new buses will be brought in by july of 2013, so you will see new buses on the street very quickly. the other thing i would also point out is it is a -- another major step down the road both in increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions going to right now the hybrid technology. that is, again, something that we are pleased with with this procurement. so happy to have the opportunity to discuss this or answer any questions and appreciate your consideration. >> thank you very much. before we go to the budget analyst report i think on this issue there were some questions about the funding.
10:50 am
it looks like the mta has primarily most of the money to complete the entire amount, or to meet the $36.9 million, but it is a little short and in the process of identifying funds to get all the way there. i absolutely understand the need for the mta to be able to purchase and procure additional buses. i think in our district we have seen the impacts of not having enough buses run. sometimes seeing mis-runs associated with either buses breaking down or not having enough fleet. so i absolutely understand the importance for the entire system. one of the questions i did have, this might be appropriate to ask the controller's office, one of the ways around -- i think we do this pretty typically with other contracts, human services agency or dph, where we enter into multi-year, not to exceed contract levels, where that department may not have all the funding immediately but the controller's office actually has controls over making sure they don't spend the not-to-exceed if they don't have the funding.
10:51 am
i think this is the situation where there is a not-to-exceed of $36.9 million, roughly. they are not all the way there but expect to be. can you explain a little about some of the controls that would be in place to ensure they have the funding and don't spend above what they have? >> absolutely. good morning, supervisors, ben rosenfield. controller. you described that exactly right, supervisor chu. the board will often prove authorization for a contract that extends, for example, over multiple years. the charter requires the controller's office to ensure the city departments can't encumber that contract until the board has additionally appropriated funds to support it. in the case of a multi-year contract authorization for example we only allow the department to encumber funds one fiscal year at a time as you appropriate funds to meet that contract. so that secondary control you are talking about does exist and we do administer it and would apply in this case. the board could approve the
10:52 am
authorization that is requested here. we would only allow the department to encumber the piece of the contract for which they had funds in hand and for which the board has approved an appropriation. to the extent additional appropriations become available, in essence it allows the mta to order the last items on the menu that would exist within the authorization you would have provided. >> thank you. so why don't we go to the budget analyst report. i believe the budget analyst had sort of a recommendation to amend the contract language, et cetera. i know there's been conversations with the budget analyst about whether this would be an appropriate way to make sure there were controls. if i can ask you to go through the report but also provide your opinion on that approach. >> vood morning, chair chu, members of the committee, supervisor wiener, i'm from the analyst's office. that's correct, we had recommended not to exceed in the amount of 36.9 to
10:53 am
about 34.3 million, 2.6 million reduction. this was based on the information and budget provided to us by mta, including the shortfall in terms of the budget. since then we have spoken to the controller's office and have been assured the controller would certify funds before they could be encumbered and spent against the contract. so recommending the approval of the contract at the full amount of $36 million we would consider to be a policy matter. >> that wouldn't be appropriated but still get the same control we are talking about? thank you. if we don't have comments, why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have this item before us. i think given the fact the controller's does have control this is pretty typical for other department where is we have multi-year large contracts where full funding is not
10:54 am
available immediately. the controller's office controls an makes sure the department does not spend what their appropriation authority is. i would suggest that rather than reduce it down per the budget analyst's original recommendation, we just not accept the budget analyst recommendation and move forward with legislation as proposed. colleagues, any thoughts on that? [ indiscernible ] >> okay. if we have a motion to move the item forward. we've got a motion to send the item forward with recommendation as-is, without objection. >> thank you, colleagues. >> thank you. item two, please. >> item two is a resolution authorizing renewal license agreement for telecommunication agreement from american towers at 99moultrie. >> thank you. for this item we have john updike. >> good morning members of the committee. john updike, director of real estate . this item seeks approval of a renewal license agreement
10:55 am
for telecommunications at 99 moultrie, in bernal heights, surrounded by the park. i have a location map on the overhead for you. more specifically, the actually facility itself. you can see the existing tower and associated building that houses the equipment that serves that tower. this was actually a city-owned facility, along with the park around it. until it was purchased by at&t in 1961 through a condemnation action against the city. the park still remains a city asset. there's easement rights through that park. as a park, that condemnation settlement in 1961, the city retained certain rights to limited number of pieces of equipment through the tower and adjacent building. if the city required additional pieces then we needed to execute a second
10:56 am
ago agreement with ownership of the tower and pay market rate for that. since 1993, that, in fact, has been the case. the city has had a separate license agreement in place for excess equipment, the tower and room serving the tower. since 2003 that has been an annual self-renewing license agreement. so it was originally approved by the board but had a clause that allowed it to self-renew unless either party decided to terminate. we felt that was a fairly risky position for the city, given we have critical communications equipment on this tower. having that be subject to a notice from landlord for removal, didn't seem to be the best practice. last year we have been negotiating this particular agreement, which is now before you. the key terms are the following. we gave it a term-certain. this takes us through may 31 of 2017. it includes two five-year options for renewal, at the
10:57 am
city's discretion. it has a clear pricing schedule, so we will be paying $2,100 per month inclusive of the utility cost. that increases at 4% against a base rate that is actually a portion. that is against a $1,400 a month base rate. the increase in the amount of allowed equipment under the lease lets us address not only our existing needs but also we've then been in touch with other departments as to anticipated needs. this takes care of, for instance, the sfmta's anticipated radio replacement project. we have the rights to place their necessary dishes and receivers, as well as the department of technology and other departments as well. we have a total of four departments within this facility. to give you a sense of the expansion of rights under that condemnation
10:58 am
agreement, we have the right for five racks of equipment in the building and eight dishes. this agreement allows us to have 15 dishes and antennas on the tower and 33 different transmitters and receivers, so we believe this does take care of our long-term needs. since we've been negotiating this and had a sense of what this pricing would be, the fiscal impact has been embedded in the adopted fiscal year 13 dem budget, so there is no future fiscal impact. we have addressed that in the adopted budget. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. supervisor avalos. >> thank you, chair chu. to clarify something in the resolution. you talked about it briefly. we have the base rent up through may 31st is $2,100 per month. then we talk about the cpi
10:59 am
of 4%, on a base rent of 1,400. does that mean we take a portion of 2100, that 4% or after next year june 1st going from $2,100 to $1,400 and applying the cpi? >> good question. yes, the 4% increase is calculated against a $1,400 base. so that is added to that to get us to 2,200 and change to get through the following year. >> thank you. for this item we did not have a budget analyst report because dollar amount or threshold wasn't met so i would like to open this for public comment. are there any members of the public to speak? seeing none, closed. do we have a motion to send that forward? we can do that without objection.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on